I agree with what you say about the movies, but I get the feeling that you're selling them short. The plot of the movies is undeniably simple and straight forward, but I don't think that's necessarily a negative. I can also see why people would find the scenes repetitive, but I didn't get that impression at all. I think that the movies have a lot going on for them, for example the action sequences, which I found to be top notch. As I've mentioned before, I also really like the world in which John Wick lives. It's a crazy world that in some aspects might not make much sense, but I can't get enough of it.

No, I didn't mean that as a negative. Well I mean sure, a great plot would make it a better movie, but my point was that it's entertaining to see video game action in movie format (454th enemy you encounter, seemingly oblivious to the fact you've just killed 453 others just like him since waking up: "I'll end this right now!", then gets killed in two minutes).

I'm not sure I understood what you meant here. Did you mean that you enjoyed the movie but it was nothing but empty calories, and that in the grand scheme of things this movie was as much empty calories as it gets?

In return I have no idea what you're talking about with "empty calories". I just mean that it's all about the action and visuals and not about the plot. No one cares whether it's the Russian or Italian mob that John Wick's pissed about. That they killed his dog or stole his car or he had some old debt or whatever is such a pure MacGuffin it's borderline satire. So much so that the characters themselves remark on it: it's fucking ridiculous in every way. But who cares, what matters is that John Wick slaughters hundreds of people in cool action sequences.

No, I didn't mean that as a negative. Well I mean sure, a great plot would make it a better movie, but my point was that it's entertaining to see video game action in movie format (454th enemy you encounter, seemingly oblivious to the fact you've just killed 453 others just like him since waking up: "I'll end this right now!", then gets killed in two minutes).

I see. As you will read below I guess I just didn't get your whole post.

In return I have no idea what you're talking about with "empty calories". I just mean that it's all about the action and visuals and not about the plot. No one cares whether it's the Russian or Italian mob that John Wick's pissed about. That they killed his dog or stole his car or he had some old debt or whatever is such a pure MacGuffin it's borderline satire. So much so that the characters themselves remark on it: it's fucking ridiculous in every way. But who cares, what matters is that John Wick slaughters hundreds of people in cool action sequences.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant, this time I did get it and, having understood, I can only agree with you completely.

After reading your post I wasn't quite sure if your opinion of the movie was that it was entertaining but not all that good or something else, especially since the second paragraph threw me off, in particular the word mindless, which in most contexts is used in a negative way (at least in my experience). My bad for not getting it.

In any case, I really liked both movies and I can't wait for the next one. I hope it won't disappoint even with the high expectations I have for it. If the third one is good, John Wick's trilogy could very well become my favorite trilogy of all time.

My wife pointed out that I've made her watch every mainstream Sci-Fi movie under the sun; all the Star Wars, Star Treks, Terminators, the Alien franchise, Predator, Problem Child 1 & 2, and she can't stand them, so she made an odd request of me: watch the Pirates of the Caribbean movies with her this week and see the new one this weekend. After she agreed to watch either Star Trek V or Alien: Resurrection first in exchange, fitting punishments either, the accord was made. And boy, those Pirate movies are TERRIBLE as everyone knows, but enough that I wanted to comment here.

The first one is fine, and fun, and Depp and Rush chew every bit of scenery, though it's a bit overstuffed despite its charms (it's one of those films that got a lot of credit simply for not being as terrible as everyone assumed, like Rise of the Planet of the Apes; it's better than bad, it's good!). The crazy part is that despite the original already going the extra mile with the concept, the sequels are so much MORE overstuffed with none of the charm to match. It's incredible how plotless and meandering they are from movie to movie and even scene to scene, to the point of existential crisis in the third one where literally nothing matters anymore. The characters are no longer characters, the plot amounts to random story elements and lore that comes and goes as it pleases and there's just no meaning to anything, even within it's own little world; characters live, die, come back, die in the end, come back in the end; every moment is a meaningless absurdity. What I'm saying is they're not just predictably bad, but remarkably bad! It makes the Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars movie-making machines look like masterworks by comparison, just by having effective emotional A to B to C plots and serviceable characters to navigate them. These don't even overindulge in Jack Sparrow, more like they don't know what to do with him while cardboard cutouts Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley get WAY too much time. These things are trying to be some kind of LotR Pirate epics but are more like what I imagine the Transformers movies must be like (I only saw the original and it was more than enough).

Anyway, I still have On Stranger Tides and the new one to go, and I'm hoping they get back to basics and are at least just fucking movies instead of some poor attempt at an epic franchise soup. Thanks for listening, wish me luck. I might need to make her watch Alien: Resurrection too after this.

Anyway, I still have On Stranger Tides and the new one to go, and I'm hoping they get back to basics and are at least just fucking movies instead of some poor attempt at an epic franchise soup. Thanks for listening, wish me luck.

Alas, poor Griffith! I knew him well; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

John Wick works because it's world building and exposition done right. Also helps that the action is competent and planned out with the least amount of cuts possible. The action is clear, precise and impactful. It's the sort of action movie where it takes a dedicated star and director to make it work. Most of those movies today are churned out quickly with no care from anyone involved. I think i gave it quite a good review here when it came out, it totally caught me by surprise.

“Yes. I think that, you know what, George has always proved that. Of course there’s always something. George Lucas. You know, and the way he’s handled ‘Star Wars‘ has been spectacular. It’s what I’ve been trying to do to really evolve ‘Alien,’ because in those days I wasn’t into making sequels, but now suddenly you realize, ‘Well, that’s stupid.’ I’ll use the word ‘duh’ again, right? You’d better get into sequels, duh. So that’s in a way what I’ve been doing,” he explained.

Even if it's a morbid thing to say, i'm glad that age will stop Ridley from going full Lucas.

Alas, poor Griffith! I knew him well; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

"Aye, don't fret over me, matey; I'm Captain Griff Falcon, savvy?"

(Kill.... meee.... and I could swear we had a proper unreleased pirate emot somewhere =)

Anyway, On Stranger Tides was at least straightforwardly ridiculous and merely mediocre with a decent cast (subtracting Bloom & Knightley for more Depp & Rush is addition by subtraction, and adding McShane & Cruz is just gravy), which is to say it was a great improvement over the two previous, interminable efforts that illicited such existential unease. Not particularly good, but at least they cut a lot of unsightly fat so I wasn't choking on my popcorn by the end.

The truth is Scott's not some auteur, he's a great director and fine producer, but obviously not a writer, so he cedes a lot of creative control over the quality of "his" stories, which explains why there's such irregularities there. Since he's in his writers' hands, if they don't have the goods the best he can do is polish a turd (I think that sums up his lesser entries rather well).

Across his entire body of work, Ridley's never really been good at creating a unifying dramatic experience. While he's definitely at his best when working from a tight as hell script that lays it on the page, the work consistently falls apart on the dramatic catharsis level. All the re-cuts you see of his movies? The reason this keeps happening is because there's no real driving story function at the core of the films. There's nothing to put together because nothing's really connected and interlocking. He's never been after function, so they're basically re-cutable ad infinitum, resulting in endless permutations of a sequence of impressions, not story-driven beats. So, yeah, despite all the austere hub bub on the surface of his films, you can see that he's absolutely not sculpting in time

I wonder if Ridley Scott is TRYING to be some franchise guy, like all these years he's secretly been jealous of George Lucas and all the mileage he got out of that ONE THING and all the other unwashed idiots, like Michael Bay, similarly cashing in if not building their reputations. It would explain why he's making a bunch of sub par Alien retreads instead of Blade Runner, "This is MY Cinematic Universe, and it's so much more highbrow!"

“Yes. I think that, you know what, George has always proved that. Of course there’s always something. George Lucas. You know, and the way he’s handled ‘Star Wars‘ has been spectacular. It’s what I’ve been trying to do to really evolve ‘Alien,‘

Why bother with these articles when you can just get this info from my old posts? If anyone wants more of these brilliant insights, into Sci-Fi and/or pirate movies, before they're officially published elsewhere, look no further! Here's one more for free:

between all these superfluous sequels and special editions Ridley Scott has become the high-end, boutique brand George Lucas. In a few years you'll be begging him to sell to the white slavers at Disney. =)

I was wrong: it was only a few months and now your wishing him a speedy death! Also, to be fair, Scott's inability to author his own stories has always precluded him from ever being Lucas, for good or for ill. Scott created Alien insofar as he executed it as only he could, but the idea is not his and he never literally or figuratively owned or sold it, which is the real reason he didn't direct sequels, "he wasn't asked." He seems to be conveniently forgetting all this in his most recent analysis.

It does seem like he's losing it, but he looks surprisingly spry for an 80 year old. My initial reaction was that at least his brother had the decency to throw himself off a bridge, but i didn't want to sound too grim.

The Big Sick was a charming, funny and heartfelt Rom-com inspired by the real life experiences of Kumail and his girlfriend at the time. Especially enjoyed the small details in the whole 'arranged marriage' scenario and how well or true it's depiction is and the family pressures/ expectations that come from it. Recommended and I'll watch it again in a couple of months on a boring afternoon.

Logged

At the end of time, a moment will come when just one man remains. Then the moment will pass. Man will be gone. There will be nothing to show that we were ever here... but stardust.

It does seem like he's losing it, but he looks surprisingly spry for an 80 year old. My initial reaction was that at least his brother had the decency to throw himself off a bridge, but i didn't want to sound too grim.

I don't know, man. That's about the shittiest thing I've read in regards to Scott's career.

Yeah, that's pretty rough. It does beg the question though if the Scott brothers might have mitigated each other's flaws, since Tony never lacked for a sense of the moment like some of Ridley's flatter efforts. They might have balanced each other as a directing team. On the other hand, speaking of which...

I completed my odyssey into lunacy and saw Pirates 5: Dead Careers Tell No Tales, done by the prominent Danish directing duo of Don't Know & Don't Care, and surprise... it wasn't very good! And the directing was a notably bad part; the action often wasn't communicated clearly or effectively, which is something I rarely see these days. Literally just handing a book from one person to another was cut confusingly (maybe it's the editor's fault) but in addition to the confusing cuts I also practically couldn't see anything during one night battle. Whatever the case, that's not good!

The plot is basically a retread of past stuff that unfortunately veers back toward the inanity that plagued parts two and especially three, and could barely be bothered to add anything new, let alone add it well. Bardem is given little to work with and does about as much with it. It's not even adequetely explained why he's a ghost instead of just... dead. Other than this series always has cursed/monster pirates of some sort, so that's why they're here (and they couldn't even think of a new take: it's basically a more ghostly version of the undead pirates from the first one).

The most interesting development is the choice to change Jack Sparrow from mercurial anti-hero who tricks his allies and adversaries into underestimating him while figuring out all the angles, or at least always landing on his feet, to actual loser and "worst pirate ever seen." He spends the entire movie as a bumbling, drunken, cowardly failure and does nothing to change by the end! I'd call this a bold choice, but it was probably just a writing oversight not to give him an redemptive arc or forget that he was always redeemable before, "This guy just sorta sucks, right?" Either that or it's a brilliant meta commentary on the character and actor; maybe the producers are tired of Depp's shit and subconciously want to poison the well and set themselves free of the Pirates' curse! In any case, mission accomplished. There's other plot stuff that happens but it's trite shit barely worth mentioning. I guess it also acts a a soft reboot, like everything these days, and resets things to post-Black Pearl status, but who cares to continue from there or anywhere with this franchise? Nobody.

Anyway, just because I'm at this place already, a listing of the Pirates movies (hint, there's still only one good one):

1. Curse of the Black Pearl - Surprisingly good fun and bolstered by an Oscar-nominated(!?) turn by Depp as Jack Sparrow. That is, before Depp actually became Sparrow and before they both became loser self-parodies.

2. On Stranger Tides - Stealing from a book to make a decent story is a very Piratey thing to do, and it's a relative success. Short, to the point, and ok. If someone held a flintlock pistol to your chest and forced you to watch a Disney Pirates movie or die, this is probably the last pick before you start considering the bullet.

3. Dead Man's Chest - Bloated and has little of the original's charm, but that little already counts at this point (at least you'll remember the first one)! Also has some cool monsters (Davey Jones) and stuff. Terrible compared to the first, not bad compared to what follows.

4. Dead Men Tell No Tales - Pretty bad, but normal bad, albeit with some direct-to-Disney-DVD vibes, but mercifully the shortest of the bunch and perverse fun to imagine Depp and company being forced to do these for lack of money and better alternatives (except poor Geoffrey Rush ).

5. At World's End - Indeed, sitting through it feels like the end of the world. This settled the series' reputation as a loser. At almost three hours long, take the bullet.

BTW, now is a good time to recommend to me a movie, because the next one I see will seem like a fucking masterpiece (I'm reconsidering the Aliens already =)! Sometimes it's good to check and possibly re-calibrate your standards by seeing what bad truly is, and even these turds feature action, effects and visuals I couldn't have even imagined on film as a kid, so there you go, we're just SPOILED, mateys!

It was a week or two weeks ago that I watched a trailer for a movie called Flatliners coming out this year, decent concept I thought ... trailer here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1S52y5ZVlY. I'd shared it with a friend and she mentioned this looked like a remake or the sequel of the original from the 90's. I hadn't seen or heard of it and finally watched it. To be honest, for that time ... this looked, felt pretty decent. Predictable but not in an unpleasant way. The movie's about a Med student wanting to know 'what's there beyond death ... is there anything people see/ experience or is there nothing'. He enlists three friends to help him with his experiment, which is basically to flatline for a certain amount of time and then be brought back to life.

The look of the film and the cast (typical of the 90's where half of them can't act - case in point Billy Baldwin) were sort of refreshing to watch for a change versus star-studded casts of todays movies. Dark but not as dark as it's contemporary Darkman or Jacob's Ladder. Big year for Kevin Bacon (with this, Tremors) and Julia Roberts (this and Pretty Woman). Have to admit that I prefer The Lost Boys over this one for the Joel Schumacher-Sutherland partnership.

EDIT

Last weekend I had the choice to either watch Despicable Me 3 or Baby Driver and I was in the mood for both.

Baby Driver was 10 or 15 minutes too long but it bloody ruled. It's about a genius driver who has one last job and when he thinks it's all over, fresh start and all, he gets pulled back in and it goes from there. The film's amazing on every technical level - acting (main lead is a perfect fit), cinematography, action scenes, editing + music (bonkers). The entire movie is like a mix-tape with awesome wit and synchronicity between actions, gestures and the music. It's all about matching the rhythm with every scene. Definitely checking this out again when it releases on blu ray and can't recommend it enough, it's up there with the best action movie to come out this year. Watch it guys. Had to look up who worked on this other than Edgar Write and the stunt director is a chap who also worked on John Wick, Drive and the Bourne movies.

« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 01:27:08 PM by IncantatioN »

Logged

At the end of time, a moment will come when just one man remains. Then the moment will pass. Man will be gone. There will be nothing to show that we were ever here... but stardust.

Baby Driver was 10 or 15 minutes too long but it bloody ruled. It's about a genius driver who has one last job and when he thinks it's all over, fresh start and all, he gets pulled back in and it goes from there. The film's amazing on every technical level - acting (main lead is a perfect fit), cinematography, action scenes, editing + music (bonkers). The entire movie is like a mix-tape with awesome wit and synchronicity between actions, gestures and the music. It's all about matching the rhythm with every scene. Definitely checking this out again when it releases on blu ray and can't recommend it enough, it's up there with the best action movie to come out this year. Watch it guys. Had to look up who worked on this other than Edgar Write and the stunt director is a chap who also worked on John Wick, Drive and the Bourne movies.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie. Sadly it doesn't open over here until the 26th. Glad to read another good review, though.

I just saw Spider-Man: Homecoming, and I thought it was OK. Just another Marvel movie, whatever that means nowadays. Other than Guardians of the Galaxy (both movies) I can't say I've really been into what Marvel has released since the first Avengers movie. Homecoming does have some good moments, my favorite being the car ride to the dance, and it's always good to see Spider-Man on the big screen with the latest FX technology, but it felt way too long; I guess I didn't quite connect with it.

Just rewatched it with some friends, one who has never seen it before. Holy shit I love this movie. It's been probably around 10 years since I've last watched it. It holds up crazy well and the soundtrack is amazing. Still definitely love the hell out of this movie.

I just got back from Baby Driver and I can only add to the praise the movie is getting. Long story short, I can agree with everything IncantatioN said, except I didn't have problem with the movie's length (my very minor criticisms lie elsewhere). A quick thought on the music of the film is that I found it so good and so well used that I'm planning on listening to the soundtrack, which is something I never really do.

Saw The Dark Tower at the apt 19:19 showing. I didn't hate it. But I also walked in with incredibly low expectations. I wish I could do this more often with movies, because it made this experience far better than it should have been for someone who loves the series (especially the first three books). Every once in awhile, you'll get a little glimmer of what this movie could have been, and it hurts when an apparent opportunity is missed. I thought it was generally a competent movie. It's pretty conventional though, and lacks pretty much all of the weird alternate dimension charm that makes the series fun. Nothing amazing, nothing completely terrible, imo. It's just fine, I guess.

I still think making The Gunslinger would have been a better choice. It's short enough, you could pretty much just use the book as the screenplay, and it would make for a fantastic movie, imo, with the option to continue the series if it did well.